Are umpires racially biased in ball/strike calls?

As a former graduate fellow I can tell you one can twist statistics so as to support any preconceived result.

Don't buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
As a former graduate fellow I can tell you one can twist statistics so as to support any preconceived result.

Don't buy it.

Very irresponsible. Proper advice is to suggest that the person to critically analyze the study, not some "Don't buy it" BS. It may be founded, it may be unfounded. I'm sure, if you actually were a graduate fellow, you knew that, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
[I'm sure, if you actually were a graduate fellow, you knew that, though.

My credibility on this site stands for itself.

BTW why are you using two screen names?

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
[I'm sure, if you actually were a graduate fellow, you knew that, though.

My credibility on this site stands for itself.

BTW why are you using two screen names?

What do you mean?

Interesting but I would need to see the data to draw a meaningful conclusion. There is clear bias in the assumptions made in the column which would lead me to belive this is a biased study, but who knows.

Yes racism still exists and I would say it will always exist but it's out there enough that you don't have to go look for it someplace it isn't. I can't see someone getting to this level of expertise with some sort of bias. Whether it's conscious or subconscious doesn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Yes racism still exists and I would say it will always exist but it's out there enough that you don't have to go look for it someplace it isn't. I can't see someone getting to this level of expertise with some sort of bias. Whether it's conscious or subconscious doesn't matter.

I would argue that everyone has biases. Whether they are externally evident is another question. There have been times in which someone gets a brainstorm to ask a question about trends, and lo and behold, there's something of substance there, unbeknownst to those who would be in a place to observe them. Other time, there's not.

So, long and short, who knows?

First, I am very weary of lefties like Sirota constantly harping on America's continued racism (this being the America that elected a black President.)

That said, the subtle and unconscious effects of ethnic differences are real. For instance, people of the same ethnicity have far, far higher ability to distinguish differences in appearance between people of their own ethnicity than they can of people of different ethnicity.

In other words: "All blacks look alike" is somewhat true for non-blacks, and "all whites look alike" is somewhat true for non-whites.

It's not racism, it is just sociology.

So I don't find it hard to believe that in a game like baseball, these inherent biases can be revealed through statistically significant differences analyzing millions of pitches.

We are not talking about intentional racist bias on the part of umpires. We are talking about miniscule unconscious biases that are only revealed because of baseball's vast data bank - millions and millions of individual events (pitches) that can be analyzed.

I am pretty sure that in the SMU study, the effects of supposed bias were very small. And it was not just white/black - it was also black/white.

That is, my take is that the actual effect of ethnic bias was so small as to lend testimony not to how racist we as a nation still are, but to show how much those in a position of authority (umpires) have been able to set aside the natural affinity to people who look like oneself.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Yes racism still exists and I would say it will always exist but it's out there enough that you don't have to go look for it someplace it isn't. I can't see someone getting to this level of expertise with some sort of bias. Whether it's conscious or subconscious doesn't matter.

I would argue that everyone has biases. Whether they are externally evident is another question. There have been times in which someone gets a brainstorm to ask a question about trends, and lo and behold, there's something of substance there, unbeknownst to those who would be in a place to observe them. Other time, there's not.

So, long and short, who knows?

I agree that we all have our biases and that overall we don't really know but this is something that you can track if you put enough effort into it. But who is the one getting screwed over by an ump - the pitcher, batter, catcher, manager? There are so many factors to consider as to who is being cheated by bias that it's almost impossible to figure out.

This is where my comment comes in that we don't need to go looking for it. There is racism and bias that affects many things that is more obvious. This is where we need to spend our time trying to advance this rather than looking for racism or bias where you can't really prove it.

This is old news. It was pretty much debunked two years ago...too many assumptions and conclusions about the sport by people without the appropriate knowledge or background, such as the claim the minority pitchers "play it safe."

BTW, Questec is dead.

I'm not racist, but I am unashamedly ratist.

Questac is dead? What do you mean?

Is there never going to be a technological check on the strike zone?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Questac is dead? What do you mean?

Is there never going to be a technological check on the strike zone?

There is, but that particular system is not used. Thankfully, MLB has replaced QuesTec with a system that is not so black-and-white (no pun intended.) The new system has, for lack of a better term, a fudge factor that understands that there is more to the strike zone than the ball hitting (or not hitting) a given part of it.

I am racist. Put a short Texan on the mound and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Good for Herrera, bad for Lackey. Hmmm

The odd thing is, I was a research assistant for a VERY similar study. Going to email my professor for an update....

There's probably much more bias is home team/ vs away team.

Is that homerism?

Wiki has this to say about the author, so draw your own conclusion....

quote:

David J. Sirota is a progressive Denver-based American political figure, radio show host and commentator.[1] He is an author,[2] book reviewer,[3] nationally syndicated newspaper columnist,[4] a Democratic political strategist,[5] political operative,[6] Democratic spokesperson

his next job was as press aide and then spokesperson for Bernie Sanders [a Socialist]

quote:

Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
There's probably much more bias is home team/ vs away team.

Is that homerism?

Wiki has this to say about the author, so draw your own conclusion....

quote:

David J. Sirota is a progressive Denver-based American political figure, radio show host and commentator.[1] He is an author,[2] book reviewer,[3] nationally syndicated newspaper columnist,[4] a Democratic political strategist,[5] political operative,[6] Democratic spokesperson

his next job was as press aide and then spokesperson for Bernie Sanders [a Socialist]

home/away/white/black/hispanic/asian/blah/blah....

I couldnt give a **** about who is playing....I dont do games where I have any interest involved (local HS or friends sons playing)...about the only thing I may have is a years long relationships with many of the head coaches of the programs....you'd have to ask them if that matters or not....

I have a ball game to umpire, so im pretty occupied with the basics safe/out/ball/strike/fair/foul to to involve myself in such a manner....

Here is another link about the subject.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/ha...Baseball4Authors.pdf

Personally I don't think there is a bias to the strike zone myself, every umpire interprets the zone differently that's what makes this game so great. Each game is different, players, pitchers, umpires it all makes up an incredible story that is played out on the field.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
There is, but that particular system is not used. Thankfully, MLB has replaced QuesTec with a system that is not so black-and-white (no pun intended.) The new system has, for lack of a better term, a fudge factor that understands that there is more to the strike zone than the ball hitting (or not hitting) a given part of it.

Whether you liked QuesTec or not, you have to admit it was groundbreaking technology, and pioneered the way for many improvements so far, and I’m sure in the future as well.

I am interested in this “fudge factor” though. Can you be more specific? As far as I know, the strike zone is defined in absolutes, with the only variable from batter to batter being the vertical limits. Once those limits are determined, its pretty simple. If any part of the ball touches any part of the zone, it’s a strike. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Wow. A great deal of money undoubtedly spent on such a worthwhile endeavor. You got to be amazed.

I don't know about racism in umpiring, but surely if they review those pitches again, they will find that Superstar hitters enjoy the benefits of a much tighter zone than the other mere mortal players?

Certainly, the answer to that must be worthy of a very expensive and time consuming examination?

I sure would like to think it is nearly impossible for racism to be involved in umpiring. Especially at the higher levels! The game is tough enough to call without weighing in factors like that.

Stats,

I think if you ask players, they will tell you that from one umpire to another, they do call balls and strikes a bit differently. The key is consistency!

The strike zone might be defined in absolutes, but it is still a judgement call that is determined by the guy behind the catcher. When relying on one person's opinion, there is nothing absolute.

As a player and a coach, I was not a big fan of most umpires. Now as someone who does more administrative type things, I have grown to greatly appreciate good umpires that act professionally. There are a lot more of them than I ever thought. Anyone that bases their decisions on something like racism, simply can't be a good umpire. IMO

quote:

Originally posted by Prime9:
Wow. A great deal of money undoubtedly spent on such a worthwhile endeavor. You got to be amazed.

Certainly, the answer to that must be worthy of a very expensive and time consuming examination?

Prime: Your federal tax dollars at work.

quote:

Such direct effects are magnified when pitchers adjust their strategies in response
to biased evaluations.

Hmmm...looks like some of the data didn't fit the theory.

Also, doesn't the catcher 'call' the pitch and location so wouldn't it be the catcher that makes the strategy adjustment?

Generally speaking, I don't think how umpires call a game is affected by the race, ethnicity of the players. However...

Over the years I have witnessed numerous examples of blatant racism out there, less so with opposing players and more so with parents and--in a somewhat more subtle and non-verbal form--with umpires. Suffice it to say it's interesting how bothered/uncomfortable some people are when a coach or a player speaks in Spanish during a game.

My experience matches up with PGStaff's guess that racism is less evident at higher levels and with older kids. With umpiring it appears to be more prevalent at the younger ages and with the older umpires.

It's no fun when a 15 year old kid, playing the game he loves and playing his heart out, is called a "monkey" or a "chink." (Just to be 100% clear: these particular insults were uttered by a coach and a parent, respectively.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Lefties like Sirota are jumping on the results to show that racism is still prevalent in America.

That sentence is more telling than anything else. Many of these so called journalists already have preconceived notions, and when a report like this comes along, they seize upon it. However when something comes along that does not fit into their agenda, nary a peep is heard from them about it.

We'd have to see the data to make an absolute judgement but I tend to agree with Rob on this. There's no surprise that umpires may have a bit of subconcious bias. Eventually as the newer umpires work their way into the system I'd expect those biases to continue to diminish. I'd certainly have to see what the basis for making the statement about pitchers playing it safer was before making a judgement about that.

Let's face it we've come a long way but most us have to be careful not to let the biases that we do have, and yes most of us over a certain age do have them, affect our actions. More important is that we don't pass on those biases to our kids.

I would like to think that any good umpire would have too much pride to allow their decisions to be based on anything except what they see happening on the field.

I realize that racism is still out there in baseball and other sports. I just can't figure out why! I really don't see much of it, if any, among the players.

You just described darn near every talking head in America, no matter which lunatic fringe they're on, left or right. They're all trying to sell something, not report the "facts", whatever those are.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector:
[That sentence is more telling than anything else. Many of these so called journalists already have preconceived notions, and when a report like this comes along, they seize upon it. However when something comes along that does not fit into their agenda, nary a peep is heard from them about it.

Trust me, it's there among the players as well. Just depends on what socioeconomic level you're dealing with, and what part of the country you live in.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
I realize that racism is still out there in baseball and other sports. I just can't figure out why! I really don't see much of it, if any, among the players.

"Despite recent odes to “post-racial” sensibilities, persistent racial wage and unemployment gaps show that prejudice is alive and well in America. Nonetheless, that truism is often angrily denied or willfully ignored in our society, in part, because prejudice is so much more difficult to recognize on a day-to-day basis. As opposed to the Jim Crow era of white hoods and lynch mobs, 21st century American bigotry is now more often an unseen crime of the subtle and the reflexive — and the crime scene tends to be the shadowy nuances of hiring decisions, performance evaluations and plausible deniability."

"First, I am very weary of lefties like Sirota constantly harping on America's continued racism (this being the America that elected a black President.)"
It seems as though that statement is exactly the situation that the author is trying to expose in the very first paragraph of his article. Because this took place, than that can no longer be true. We elected a black President, so racism must no longer exist. Angrily denied or willfully ignored.
Also, I am African-American,I do not believe even somewhat that "all whites look alike"

I have been on this sight for about 7 or 8 years. Very seldom comment but read regularly. I have been in a situation that probably many of you have never been in. That being the parent of the ONLY African-American on baseball teams for at least 6 of the 8 years he has been playing a high level of baseball. The only reason I am entering into this conversation is just last night my son and I was at a local sports bar watching NY/Detroit and the issue came up about how his teammates treat him. There are a couple of mixed race players on his team but besides those three all are white. He stated that he has never experienced any racism on the field, something that MTH said still exists in some areas.
I have taken my son to several different tryouts over the years, just to gauge his skill level and just for the workout. One team I knew that he had no chance of making just because of the demographics of the area the team was based out of. We went and the coaches all asked him "where did you come from" which we interpreted as how come we have never seen you before. He ran the fastest time and had one of the strongest arm. They never called back. No problem. Another team we tried out for son ran the 3rd fastest time of over 50 kids. Coach told him he needs to work on his speed. Over the years we have learned that people assumed he had blazing speed because he was black. We used to laugh about that assumption. He has since increased his speed from 7.5 as a sophomore in high school to 6.6,6.7 as a freshman in college.
Did we experience racism? Yes and no. When he was about 12 a parent told the head coach that there was no way that black kid should be starting in front of his son at shortstop. To me that was racist, what did his race have to do with his level of play. The parent pulled his kid from the team, we played them later that summer and guess what, his kid was on third base. Another incident, a kid was thrown out trying to steal third, without the steal sign, he laughed when he was coming off the field like he didn't care. His teammates were upset and was about to give him the blues when I intervened(assistant coach) and just said every body makes mistakes. His parent blew up at me, pulled his kid from the dugout and told the head coach when he got rid of me they will let their son play for him. I was the only coach that did not holler at the kids. I felt that was racism.
I know I got off topic from the article but when someone asked about racism among players, my son never experienced it and I never had any problems from the parents, not to say that they did not have any problems with me UNTIL Barack Obama ran for President. By this time my son was playing high school ball but I received from one parent email after email about Obama this Obama that. He even went to tell me that I should admit that I am both politically and economically ignorant. I asked him nicely to please delete me from his email. After a while I showed the emails to my son and explained to him at times when you are helping people achieve a goal(baseball championships) that they will accept you and be cordial and appear to be nice, but once you are no longer in their plans then their true nature sometimes will come out. Those emails was one of those times. As luck would have it, last fall we were at a tourney about 110 miles out of town and guess who's car we pulled up next to. The husband never did get out of the car. Fate.
I do not vote straight Democrat or Republican. I am not caught up in the left or right. I never talked politics with the parents. Never. I know that blacks and whites can view the same things differently. We were just trying to play a high level of baseball.
This is my longest post ever and I know I am rambling, but this was an issue that I have been thinking about and my son said it would be okay to mention it. Rob,please take no offense about my first statement based on your statement.
Let my say this in closing. We were at a ballgame when my in-laws came to watch. At this time my son was the only black player on the field, in the dugouts anywhere. He was at short, my pops-in-law was scanning the field then he just asked out loud "What's his number" We all had tears in our eyes.
Thanks for all the info over the years, it has been very helpful. Time to move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
There is, but that particular system is not used. Thankfully, MLB has replaced QuesTec with a system that is not so black-and-white (no pun intended.) The new system has, for lack of a better term, a fudge factor that understands that there is more to the strike zone than the ball hitting (or not hitting) a given part of it.

Whether you liked QuesTec or not, you have to admit it was groundbreaking technology, and pioneered the way for many improvements so far, and I’m sure in the future as well.

I am interested in this “fudge factor” though. Can you be more specific? As far as I know, the strike zone is defined in absolutes, with the only variable from batter to batter being the vertical limits. Once those limits are determined, its pretty simple. If any part of the ball touches any part of the zone, it’s a strike. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Here's one: The new evaluation system does not call a pitch that hit the "hallow beneath the knee" at the front of the plate, then took dirt back at the catcher, a strike.

Sloroller,

For a guy who doesn't post so much that was a nice, if troubling. Please share some more in the future. It is nice to hear your perspective. Good luck to your son.

My son is half Asian and, while never really facing racism like your son has there was one time during a big tournament the other team came walking onto the field and one of the players was laughing "Hey.. look at the little Asian kid warming up."

That little Asian kid threw a one-hitter.

Does rasism exist in America, unfortunately. As Ron White says,"You can't fix stupid!" Do umpires call balls/strikes by race? That has to be the dumbest premise I have heard recently. The study is a prime example of taking a preconceived notion and making numbers fit that notion.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Do umpires call balls/strikes by race? That has to be the dumbest premise I have heard recently. The study is a prime example of taking a preconceived notion and making numbers fit that notion.

That's not quite the premise here.

Top 10 reasons that baseball is racist and politically incorrect.


10. Umpires call a strike on a pitch that is "on the black"!

9. the game is played "between the white lines"

8."pennant race".

7."foul Pole"

6."Czech swing"

5."Cracker"jacks at ballpark

4. Shutouts are called a "whitewash"

3. Left field and Right field

2. "Chink" hits off the end of the bat

And the #1 reason baseball is racially and politically incorrect

A Home run is called a 4-bagger, which also describes Nancy Pelosi!

And the insanity just continues.

quote:

Originally posted by sloroller:
He stated that he has never experienced any racism on the field,

Over the years we have learned that people assumed he had blazing speed because he was black. We used to laugh about that assumption.

I am glad to read your son never experienced any racism between the white lines. However isn't it racist for someone to assume that because someone is black they are automatically fast?
Don't get me wrong, I am not into political correctness, but if something positive is said about a race it is not considered racist, but if something negative is said, it is?
Sweeping generalizations about anything is not smart, but when applied to race, it depends on if the comment is positive or negative as to whether it is considered "racist" or not.

My son played for years with one black teammate and he was as comfortable as can be with all white and brown teammates. I often speak with his dad, and when he told me his son was going to play for a traditionally black college, he expressed concern. I asked why and he said because his son has mostly white friends, and would not be use to a mostly black student population. The only reason he was sending him there was because this school would allow him to play both football and baseball on a full ride. I told him his son would do fine because he is a good kid who makes friends easily. The bottom line is that most people are not racist in a bad way, and even though this kid might have experienced some comments from opposing players, it was few and far between.

All races have a certain % that are racist, but by and large most people are decent. It is the race baiters of the world like Al Sharpton who try to exploit anything that involves people of different races. Fortunately he is not representative of the majority of black people, just as David Duke is not representative of most white people.

Vector,
Racism cannot be specifically defined. As I stated in my post blacks and whites see things differently. For example, I noticed that you said "It is the race baiters of the world like Al Sharpton who tries to exploit anything that involves people of different races." I could ask why didn't you say race baiters of the world like David Duke? A person could say that your statement was racist because you attached a negative(race baiter)to a African-American, but did not attach any thing to the KKK member, a white male and known race hater. With you saying that about Sharpton many on this board might not have even noticed that distinction, but I did and you might not have even thought about that yourself. Again blacks and whites,and all other races can see the same thing and look at it differently.
The world is what it is and everyone on this board could give examples of why isn't this considered racist and why that is not. I never said that the assumption that he was fast wasn't racist, I just said we laughed about it.

Another example, over the years at practices/games/tryouts with him being the only black kid, new parents or just parents at the various tryouts, would walk up to me and say, "Is that your son at short?" Would you take that as racism? The question was neither positive or negative but is was an assumption based on race. I laughed about those things also. I know that they just figured he is the only black kid, you are the only black person in the stands, 2+2.

I don't try to change people's personal opinions about anything. We all come from different backgrounds with different experiences. Like I said in my first post, I knew that I had experienced things that most other posters had not and wanted to share but I also knew that the subject of race can sometimes be a touchy subject as well as politics.

I am making a general assumption here. It appears that a lot of posters on this board lean to the Republican side looking on the "Unusually Unusual".
Not too many fans of President Obama there. Do I consider the comments being negative about him based only on his race, no. But I have heard many times from the political pundits in various media outlets complain that 95% of the African-American voters supported Obama just because he was black. I have never heard any one complain before that 95% of the African-Americans voted for the other 43 because they were white. We all know that they did not talk to every one of the 95% to ask them why they voted the way they did. But their stated reason might as well be etched in stone. Is that racist? It could be considered a positive to black people(we stuck together) and a negative to whites
(only because he was black).
Racism is based on individuals perception, in my humble opinion. I don't dwell on it.

Bum, thanks.

The Socialist author achieved his goals - to pit groups against each other in order to ultimately gain political power.

Can't we all get along? Play ball.